1

Examination of SLDC’s Land Allocations DPD: response to Matter 1.6

V H Kennedy BA(Hons) CMIOSH

Matter 1.6 Soundness of site appraisal process: sustainable, objective, appropriate criteria, justified (Grange-over-Sands and district)

Unsound DPD section:

Paragraphs:

2.9 Key Service Centre allocations, 2.11 Key Service areas have local support, 2.16 Housing division principles, 2.17 Deliverable and viable, 2.21 Criteria for exclusion of sites, 2.22 Needs of each location and service capacity, 2.23 Community engagement, sustainability, landscape impact, community infra structure, 2.25 Local drainage issues, 2.26 Highway capacity, 2.28 Site capacity, 2.29 Infrastructure capacity, 2.34 Mixed use allocations, 2.37 Local employment sites, 2.38 Mixed use developments, 2.43 New employment sites, 2.52 Rural employment development, 2.58 Green gaps, 2.63 Amenity open space, 2.69 Adopted Core Strategy policies

Section 4 Land allocations, Grange-over-Sands

4.1 Vision, 4.2 Policy context, 4.4 Key Service Centre, 4.5 local factors influencing location of development land, 4.6 Retention of separation from Allithwaite 4.9 Major mixed use sites, 4.10 Additional green field sites, 4.11 Berners brown field site 4.12 Land south of Allithwaite Road 4.14 Guides Lot site 4.15 Land opposite Little Fell Gate Farm 4.16 Land east of Cardrona Road 4.17 Land north of Carter Road 4.18 Land south of Thornfield Road 4.19 green spaces and open spaces 4.22 Coalescence between Grange-over-Sands and Allithwaite, 4.25 Land at Bank Field House 4.27 Land north of Jack’s Hill

Policies:

LA1.3 Housing allocations, LA1.9 Green gaps, LA3.2 Mixed use of land south of Allithwaite Road, LA1.10 Existing green infrastructure, LA3.3 Mixed use Guides Lot.

With regard to Core Strategy:

Policies:

CS1.1 Sustainable Development Principles, CS1.2 Development Strategy (Key Service Centres); needs of each location and service capacity, CS4 Cartmel peninsula, CS6.1 Meeting the housing requirement, CS6.2 Dwelling mix and type, CS6.3 Provision of affordable housing (35% except…!), CS 6.6 Effective and efficient use of land and buildings, CS 7.1 Meeting the employment requirement, CS7.5 Town centre and retail strategy, CS8.1 Green infrastructure, CS8.2 Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character, CS8.4 Biodiversity and geodiversity, CS8.6 Historic environment, CS8.8 Flood risk, CS9.1 Social and community infrastructure.

Paragraphs:

2.19 Key Service Centres criteria, 2.23 Factors for identifying sites, 2.9 Requirements based on Regional Spatial Strategy, 2.11 Local communities support Key Service Centre status, 2.20 Size, character and environmental capacity, 2.22 Infrastructure capacity, 5.5 Grange-over-Sands residents need to travel for work and services, 5.7 Tourism needs, 5.8 Grange-over-Sands: based on Regeneration study, 5.10 Additional 72 ‘Affordable housing’ per annum in Grange-over-Sands area, 5.11 Second home ownership, 5.12 Poor road access, 5.13 Improving infrastructure priority, 5.14 Bus links to Principal Service Centres at northern edge of town, 5.16 Grange-over-Sands: limestone pavements, 5.26 Cartmel peninsula strategy.

With regard to the NPPF section:

Paragraph 7: Sustainable development: enhancing environment

Paragraph 9: Sustainable development: improvements in quality of

2

environment

Paragraph 10: Sustainable development: local circumstances

Paragraph 17: Housing, business and other development needs of area; use of brown field sites; conservation of heritage assets

Paragraph 21: Investment in infrastructure

Paragraph 28: Support rural tourism

Paragraph 35, 38 & 40: Sustainable transport

Paragraph 50, 51, 54 & 55: Choice of homes reflecting demand and local need and enhancing rural communities.

Paragraph 28: Integrated approach – housing and access to local services, community facilities

Reasons that the site appraisal process for Grange-over-Sands and district cannot be considered sustainable, objective or justified:

SLDC have not addressed concerns and problems raised by Grange-over-Sands Town Council and local residents about the sustainability of proposed developments, and, they have ignored recommendations in the Grange-over-Sands Regeneration Study 2007. Problems include:

1. Grange-over-Sands as a Key Service Centre

a) May 2007: SLDC commissioned Douglas Wheeler Associates to undertake a regeneration study of Grange-over-Sands with the stated aim to improve the function of Grange-over-Sands as a Key Service Centre.

b) SLDC had already assigned Grange-over-Sands Key Service Centre status before the regeneration study; their remit did not include assessment of the Key Service Centre status as stated DPD paragraph 4.4; they were asked to look at ways of improving Grange-over-Sands function as a Key Service Centre.

c) Grange-over-Sands does not meet SLDC’s criteria for a Key Service Centre as defined in CS1.2 and paragraphs 2.11 (Appendix 1). For example, it does not have: good public transport links to outlying settlements, a secondary school or provision for further education after age 16, easy access to hospital services and it is not the main employment centre for the area.

d) Grange-over-Sands’ nearest petrol service station is on the A590, about four miles from the centre of the town.

e) SLDC have not presented any objective evidence to demonstrate that Grange-over-Sands Town Council or local residents have supported Key Service Centre status as stated in DPD paragraph 2.11.

2. Green field sites: the DPD has:

a) Proposed developments on green field sites that the 2007 regeneration study identified as environmentally sensitive.

b) Ignored the 2007 regeneration study recommendation that it: “… was important to: protect the network of green spaces and important environmental characteristics of the town and its setting…”

c) Ignored the impact of such large scale development have on the Grange-over-Sands and District conservation areas, especially on Conservation area 3 in Kents Bank adjacent to MN25N and Greaves Wood Bridleway (Appendix 2) and areas with Limestone pavement orders (Appendix 3).

d) Introduced a large green field site (MN25N) that will lead to coalescence between Allithwaite and Kents Bank (Grange-over-Sands) that has not been independently assessed (Appendix 4).

e) Introduced other important green field sites that have not been independently assessed (Appendix 4): R79# (Jack Hill, R672 (Cardrona) and R74/R449 (Low Fell Gate).

f) Have not protected the “… network of green corridors of value for wildlife, recreation and the amenity needs of the community…” in Grange-over-Sands and district as required by SLDC Core Strategy Policy CS 8.1.

3

3. Cumulative impact of proposed developments on infrastructure:

a) Local road capacity (‘main’ road B5277, hinterland ‘C’ roads, known traffic bottle-necks; Appendix 5).

b) Flooding caused by run-off onto adjacent areas and roads (particularly from MN25N and R89; Appendix 6).

c) Access to local services especially health care (time to reach nearest hospital in emergency).

d) Tourism, the life-blood of Grange-over-Sands and District will be adversely affected by the cumulative effect of coastal urban sprawl from the proposed developments on green field sites.

4. Adverse impact on tourism, the life-blood of Grange-over-Sands and district:

a) The hinterland topography and the coastal boundary on the south mean that it is not possible to enlarge Grange-over-Sands without:

i. Impinging on adjacent communities and

ii. Adversely affecting the vernacular landscape and historical heritage of the area.

b) Tourists come to Grange-over-Sands to enjoy the unique Victorian/Edwardian heritage that sets it apart from other towns including enjoying views of the delightful low fell sides that separate it from Cartmel and Allithwaite. They will not be attracted by SLDC’s proposed urban sprawl.

5. The scale of the proposed development:

a) No objective evidence to support the scale of ‘housing need’ SLDC is proposing for Grange-over-Sands and District.

b) No objective evidence to demonstrate that there is a clear need for employment units to be located on R350M and MN25N. Traffic from both these sites will cause further congestion on the known bottle-necks of Risedale Hill and Main Street (Appendix 5).

c) Grange-over-Sands does not meet SLDC’s criteria for a Key Service Centre therefore it should not be allocated extra housing on this basis.

d) SLDC’s vision for Grange-over-Sands (Land Allocation DPD, paragraph 4.1) will not be achieved by their proposals for extensive developments on important green field sites in, and outside the boundaries of Grange-over-Sands.

6. Selection of sites in Grange-over-Sands and district:

a) Attractive green field sites have been put forward by land owners and associated developers.

b) The SLDC Planning Development Team appears to have allowed land availability to take precedence over infrastructure problems and the wishes of local communities.

7. The Community of Kents Bank

a) SLDC’s Land Development DPD treats Kents Bank as a suburb of Grange-over-Sands. Why?

b) In a ruling about the conversion of the Kents Bank Hotel to residential apartments (APP/M0933/A/05/1184710), Planning Inspector B S Rogers BA(Hons) DipTP MRTIP

stated: “…Kents Bank… appears to me to be a distinctive settlement, rural in nature and is too far from the centre of Grange-over-Sands for reasonable access on foot. Kents Bank is separately signed, has its own post office and railway station, and is

perceived by its residents as being a separate entity…”

c) The relationship between Grange-over-Sands and Kents Bank is similar to the relationship between Cartmel and the Headless Cross. Headless Cross is dealt with as a separate community in the DPD whereas Kents Bank is included with Grange-over-Sands and is not considered as separate community.

8. The viability of SLDC’s 35% ‘affordable housing’ development clause:

a) SLDC have ‘sold’ their Land Allocation DPD to councillors and residents on the basis that the only way to fund ‘affordable housing in the district is by requiring developers to build 35% ‘affordable housing’ as a condition of receiving planning permission.

b) There is no objective evidence that developers will agree that the 35% ‘affordable housing’ clause is viable; no previous developments in Grange-over-Sands and

4

district have been built on this basis.

c) CS 6.3 states: “…a lower requirement for affordable housing will be acceptable where there is clear evidence that it would make the development unviable…” and this has been routinely used as a ‘get out’ mechanism for initial restrictions based on developments in South Lakes District (eg Appendix 7).

Changes being sought to make DPD sound for Grange-over-Sands and district:

1. Reduce the ‘housing need’ targets for South Lakeland District because the current targets are not based on objective evidence, are not justified and are not sustainable.

2. Reduce the number residential units allocated to Grange-over-Sands and district to a level that reflects genuine local housing need and is based on objective evidence.

3. Remove Grange-over-Sands status as a Key Service Centre because it does not meet SLDC’s own Core Strategy criteria for Key Service Centres and amend the land development allocations accordingly.

4. Include provisions for upgrading infrastructure such as roads, particularly the known Grange-over-Sands and district bottle-necks at Main Street, Risedale Hill and Allithwaite narrows, before permitting any green field development.

5. Include provisions for enhancing Grange-over-Sands’ attraction as a tourist destination and for leisure activities eg squash courts, safe cycle routes etc...

6. Include provisions for a petrol service station in Grange-over-Sands.

7. Develop brown field sites in Grange-over-Sands, such as Berners (owned by SLDC), as outlined in versions of SLDC’s Core Strategy since 2008, before any green field development is permitted.

8. Include provision for restoring Berner’s footbridge, the Public Right of Way over the railway, demolished by SLDC without consultation, approval or support from the local community on H & S grounds.

9. Ensure that the important green field sites MN25N, R79#, R672, R89, R449/R74, and R110 are not included in SLDC’s Land Allocation DPD.

10. Ensure that no development is allowed on green field sites that threaten coalescence between Kents Bank (Grange-over-Sands) and Allithwaite (MN25N, R79#, and R672).

11. Ensure that no development is allowed on green field sites that threaten further coalescence between Grange-over-Sands and Kents Bank (R449/R74, and R110).

12. Ensure that Kents Bank’s integrity as a separate community is maintained.

13. Consider options for development sites adjacent to the B5277 road to Lindale on the edge of Grange-over-Sands (about 2½ miles from the Lindale roundabout with the A590; extra traffic would avoid known Grange-over-Sands and district traffic bottle-necks).

14. Discuss options for potential developments (particularly employment units) on the edge of Lindale with the Lake District National Park Authority (about 2 miles from the Lindale roundabout with the A590; extra traffic would avoid known Grange-over-Sands and district traffic bottle-necks).

5

Appendices attached:

Appendix 1: Grange-over-Sands as a Key Service Centre: Section 3 from V H Kennedy’s ‘soundness’ response to SLDC’s Land Allocation Development Plan (DPD, Jan 2012) submitted to SLDC during their April 2012 ‘soundness’ consultation.

Appendix 2: Map of Grange-over Sands Conservation area 3 (Kents Bank)

Appendix 3: Map showing showing the relationship between site MN25N and the adjacent areas of Kirkhead, Greaves Wood and Wart Barrow covered by Limestone Pavement Orders (separate attachment in electronic version).

Appendix 4: Map showing the impact of development on MN25N on coalescence between Kents Bank and Allithwaite.

Appendix 5: The inadequate road system in Grange-over-Sands and district: Section 7 about from V H Kennedy’s ‘soundness’ response to SLDC’s Land Allocation Development Plan (DPD, Jan 2012) submitted to SLDC during their April 2012 ‘soundness’ consultation.

Appendix 6: Photographs of flooding at Kents Bank station: ‘run off’ from Priory Lane, Kirkhead Road and Greaves Road bridleway that has got proportionately worse after each infilling house planning application has been completed.

Extensive development on site MN25N is likely to increase run-off flooding in the adjacent, lower lying areas of Kents Bank because water runs down hill.

Appendix 7: Summary of the planning process that allowed the Kents Bank Hotel to be converted to residential apartments to illustrate the way that developers are able to manipulate planning restrictions

6

Appendix 1 Map showing that Grange-over-Sands conservation area 3 (covering Kents Bank), has a boundary with site MN25N at the southern end of Greaves Wood Road bridleway.

7

MN25M (202 dwellings +

employment units)

R89 (45 dwellings)

R672 (28 dwellings)

R350M (17 dwellings +

employment units)

R79# (27 dwellings)

R265# (11 dwellings)

R347# (10 dwellings)

Proposed green gap between Allithwaite & Kents Bank: 220 metres

Key

Land covered by Limestone Pavement Order

Public bridleway

Land prone to flooding

Risedale Hill: steep & narrow with stone walls on either side.

Main route to Grange-over–Sands, A590 & M6 from the Cartmel peninsula

Ordnance Survey © Crown copyright 1998. All rights reserved. Licence no: PMCL 100052416

R74 & R449 (46 dwellings)

Allithwaite

Kents Bank

Appendix 2 Map showing showing the relationship between site MN25N and the adjacent areas of Kirkhead, Greaves Wood and Wart Barrow covered by Limestone Pavement Orders.

(Attached as separate electronic file)

Appendix 3: Map showing the impact of development on MN25N on coalescence between Kents Bank and Allithwaite.

8

Appendix 4: Section 7 about the inadequate road system in Grange-over-Sands and and district from V H Kennedy’s ‘soundness’ response to SLDC’s Land Allocation Development Plan (DPD, Jan 2012) submitted to SLDC during their April 2012 ‘soundness’ consultation.

7 Does SLDC’s Land Allocation Document make adequate provision for capital expenditure to upgrade local roads?

7.1 Allithwaite Road (B5277) is already inadequate for the amount of traffic regularly travelling between Grange-over-Sands, Allithwaite, Flookburgh, Holker Hall, Kendal, Lancaster and the M6.

7.2 The traffic problem is exacerbated when regular events such as Cartmel Races and the Holker Garden Festival attract large crowds.

7.3 The stretch of Allithwaite Road between Kents Bank and Allithwaite from the top of Risedale Hill is a fast stretch of undulating road that poses sight line problems for drivers (see picture 3, section 6.15).

7.4 Developers would be forced to create new roads for development area MN25M linking onto Allithwaite Road; this would increase traffic hazards on Allithwaite Road, or, lead to the creation of an intrusive roundabout system that would destroy the rural nature of this road and area

7.5 Greaves Wood Road bridleway forms the eastern, and southern, boundaries of MN25M; it could not be used as access to MN25M development area because of a) the Protected Limestone Pavement in Greaves Wood and b) it is a popular pedestrian route for local residents, especially dog walkers (see Map 1, section 5.7 and Map 3, section 6.4).

7.6 Access from Kirkhead Road to the MN25M development area is not practical; there are no suitable gaps between the houses whose back gardens form the western boundary of MN25M.

7.7 Industrial development and 202 residential units will generate a large amount of extra traffic in Kents Bank that will all need to drive through Grange-over-Sands to reach the A590 for access to Kendal, Lancaster and the M6; the local road system is not suitable for this.

7.8 Local roads are not adequate to accommodate service vehicles for industrial development.

Pictures 5 to 6 Showing views of Risedale Hill, Allithwaite Road (B5277), and the Allithwaite Road junction with Kirkhead Road and Jack Hill.

5 Risedale Hill: a narrow road with bends and stone walls on either side.

6. The 90° bend on Allithwaite Road where Kirkhead Road and Jack Hill join Allithwaite Road (B5277)

9

7.9 SLDC are also proposing to build dwellings on the land behind the lorry on Allithwaite Road (picture 6) and on the left hand side of Allithwaite Road beyond the junction of Allithwaite Road with Jack Hill (junction to the left of Kirkhead Road; picture 6); access to both these sites is constrained by their location and will cause road safety problems.

7.10 Picture 5 clearly shows that it is not possible to widen or straighten Risedale Hill without major road works involving compulsory purchase orders, demolition of walls and completely altering the character of this part of Kents Bank and that the road is not suitable for large volumes of traffic.

7.11 Traffic from three other nearby proposed residential developments in Kents Bank, R672M: 36 residential units & R89: 45 residential units, R350M: 17 houses, also link to Allithwaite Road, near the top of Risedale Hill therefore they should also be taken into account when undertaking an area traffic impact study (see Map 1, section 5.7); as should traffic generated by all residential and employment developments west of Risedale Hill in Allithwaite and Flookburgh.

7.12 Once the traffic has negotiated Risedale Hill it then has to negotiate Main Street hill in Grange-over-Sands another bottleneck that is often made worse by delivery vehicles for the local shops because none of the shops on this part of Main Street have rear access,

7.13 The local roads are in a poor state of repair and are not suitable for this level of traffic increase.

7.14 SLDC have made no provision for improving these roads and have not justified a need for developments that will make the traffic conditions considerably worse and deter tourists.

7.15 There is no viable route for a Grange-over-Sands by-pass. A new trunk road to the A590 would have to be routed across rough pastureland to the north of Grange-over-Sands and would impinge on classic views of Cartmel and Cartmel Priory.

7.16 Car parking in Grange-over-Sands is already inadequate for local residents shopping and tourists and again, no provision has been made in SLDC’s Land Allocation DPD to improve local car parking facilities.

Section 7: Inadequate local roads in Grange-over-Sands and District; summary of main conclusions

� The roads in Grange-over-Sands and district are already inadequate for the traffic that they carry.

� There are two major bottlenecks: Risedale Hill and Main Street Hill that cannot be widened due to their location.

� It would be expensive and difficult to agree a route for a new trunk road to the A590 that by-passed Grange-over-Sands.

� SLDC have not made any provision to upgrade roads in Grange-over-Sands and district.

� SLDC have not provided objective evidence to justify proposing large development to the west of Grange-over-Sands given the already inadequate road system.

10

Appendix 5: Photographs of flooding at Kents Bank station: ‘run off’ from Priory Lane, Kirkhead Road and Greaves Road bridleway that has got proportionately worse after each infilling house planning application has been completed.

Extensive development on the hillside site MN25N is likely to increase run-off flooding in this adjacent area that is at the bottom of the hill and on Greaves Wood Road bridleway that is also prone to flooding at the bottom of the hill after heavy rain.

Flooding at Kents Bank station after heavy rain in August 2012

11

Appendix 5: Summary of the planning process that allowed the Kents Bank Hotel, Kentsford Road, Kents Bank, to be converted to residential apartments to illustrate the way that developers are able to manipulate planning restrictions.

13th December 2005: Planning Inspector B S Rogers BA(Hons) DipTP MRTIP ruled against an appeal for conversion of the Kents Bank Hotel to residential apartments (APP/M0933/A/05/1184710).

The reasons for his ruling included:

Point 2 where he cited: South Lakeland Local Plan, Policy T2a “…that aims to maintain, and where possible enhance, holiday accommodation in Grange-over-Sands…” and Policy H13 “…that seeks to retain rural facilities; conversion of such facilities to residential use will be permitted only where the site does not occupy a favourable position in terms of accessibility and a) it would not result in the loss of village vitality b) it is no longer viable c) it has been adequately marketed for its facility use for at least 9 months…”

Point 3 of his ruling the Inspector also stated: “…Whilst I accept that Kents Bank can be considered as part of the wider ‘tourist offer’ of Grange-over-Sands, and therefore falls within the scope of Policy T2a, it appears to me to be a distinctive settlement, rural in nature and too far from the centre of Grange-over-Sands for reasonable access on foot. Kents Bank is separately signed, has its own post office and railway station, and is perceived by its residents as being a separate entity. On the above basis I regard both policies H13 and T2a as relevant to the determination of this appeal…”

On 25th July 2006: SLDC granted planning permission for the Kents Bank Hotel, Kentsford Road, Kents Bank, to be converted to holiday apartments with a bar and restaurant.

All the holiday apartments had the restriction that they were to be used for “…let holiday accommodation and for no other purpose…” in accordance with SLDC Policies T3 and T2a and that “…occupation as permanent residences would be contrary to these policies…”

March 2009: (SL/2009/0118), about 18 months after the apartments had been completed and run as holiday apartments SLDC Planning Department lifted these restrictions on the grounds that they were not viable even though the apartments had been poorly marketed at an excessively high weekly rental when compared with other similarly priced holiday apartments.

The bar and restaurant suffered the same fate and the space that they occupied has been converted to residential apartments.

12

Appendix 7: Copy of a letter sent to the Westmorland Gazette (17 June 2006) about SLDC’s proposals to demolish two footbridges* to Grange-over-Sands promenade on H & S grounds and without giving the statutory 21 days notice.

* On 4th January 2008 the Berners Lane and Claire Lane footbridges were designated as Rights of Way under Section 53 (2) (b) of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 by order of Cumbria County Council.

The Editor The Westmorland Gazette 1 Wainright’s Yard Kendal, Cumbria LA9 4DP

18 June 2006

Dear Sir

Re: Clare House Lane & Berners Close railway footbridges, Grange-over-Sands

As a Community Charge payer living in the Grange-over-Sands area for the last 33 years I have written to ask the Chief Executive of South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) to answer the following questions: 1. Why did SLDC fail to set up a basic maintenance programme for the footbridges, as

required by UK law, when they became responsible for them in 1974? 2. Why did SLDC ignore the recommendations made in the excellent engineer’s report on

the condition of the Clare House Lane and Berners Close railway footbridges that they commissioned from Jarvis in 2001?

3. Why didn’t SLDC investigate the possibility of obtaining grant aid to help restore the bridges to their former Edwardian glory after receipt of the 2001 Jarvis report?

4. Why did SLDC fail to include repair work on these bridges, as part of their routine property maintenance schedule, for the period when the railway line would be closed?

5. How can SLDC justify closing two public rights of way over the railway line to Grange promenade without giving 21 days statutory planning notice and undertaking a public consultation exercise that considers all options?

6. What provision have SLDC made for alternative pedestrian footpath access to Grange promenade within a few metres of the footbridges they plan to demolish?

7. How can SLDC claim that Clare House Lane and Berners Close railway footbridges have suddenly become unsafe and must be demolished before the railway line is re-opened? SLDC have been aware of the condition of the bridges and of what action was needed since 2001; notice of the railway line closure has been in the public domain for months. If SLDC were really concerned about the state of these bridges they have had plenty of time to follow statutory planning procedures and assess all options without trying to circumvent the law.

8. Do SLDC require planning permission before they can legally demolish footbridges? If so, how has this been obtained without displaying the statutory notices of intent for 21 days prior to the relevant Planning Committee meeting?

9. When are SLDC going to allocate a fair share of SLDC resources for maintaining important public assets in Grange-over-Sands?

SLDC appear to have failed in their “duty of care” to Grange Community Charge payers by not maintaining these footbridges adequately since 1974. Although Clare House Lane and Berners Close railway footbridges are in a poor state of repair, due to neglect, I understand that they could still be repaired and brought up to standard.

The retention of these footbridges is important for tourists, for locals and for the local economy that is heavily dependent on tourism. They have been used as public rights of way to Grange promenade for over 100 years so SLDC may be breaking the law by demolishing them without providing alternative public access within a few metres of the these bridges.

Yours sincerely,

13

V H Kennedy (Mrs)